"Timorese Development: Capitalism, Communism or Mauberism?"

AcacioAngel

There is an interesting discussion that is going on Facebook - ‘Emerging Leadership group’ -  that questions the path of development taken by Timor Leste. It is interesting to spend some time on the thoughts and comments because the terms ‘capitalism’, ‘communism’ and ‘mauberism’ recurrently appear in Timorese public discussions and political rhetoric. Now, the intryguing thing is that these terms have been used plainly without any clear definition provided by the commentaries, which in turn raises more questions. For instance, one of the comment questions what people mean by the term ‘Mauberism’. Otherwise, two other terms, capitalism and communism are widely used in Timorese socio-political parlance but there is no critical assessment on the terms in relation to Timorese economic development. 

Topic for discussion by Aze Aparicio

First of all, there is no such thing as a Mauberism model of development or at least I haven’t heard of its principles that could be used as road map to development.  Maubere is a local word for a native-male man, often associated with being dirty, uncivilized, dark skin, etc.  I am not going further to develop its semantic meaning and or its uses during the Portuguese period. Nonetheless, the term was used by the founding fathers of the country to represent Timorese and advance their cause for self-determination. Although not all Timorese want to be called Maubere people – some rather prefer to simply be called Timorese – the term unites Timorese of various social groups and descendants for a common cause, which was to be free from colonization. In one of Colloquium at the UNTL a few years ago, Dr. Mari Alkatiri turned down the idea of over emphasizing the term ‘maubere’ (or mauberism) because it was arbitrarily used by the early revolutionary activists to emulate nationalism and advance Timor’s case at the international stage. The FRETILIN party is credited for employing the word to mobilize the independence movement. In post independence, the term is widely used by other political parties during campaign periods to attract voters.

Maubere! who do you vote for?

Now, left with Capitalism and Communism, the question is which  system does the country implement? These two terms are also loosely used in Timorese conversations. Capitalism, a mode of production that relies so much on surplus value, has had negative connotations in Timor Leste.  It is closely associated with the terms ‘colonialism’, ‘imperialism’ and ‘fascism’, which Timorese aimed to overthrow by revolution. During political campaigns or protests we often hear young Timorese yelling “Abaixo colonialismo, imperialismo e capitalismo, etc.” Otherwise, after the independence, there are more sporadic voices of people accusing  certain Catholic Church’s practices to be capitalistic or, at least, practicing petit bourgeois, something contrary to what it preaches. That is, on one hand, it preaches poverty but on the other hand they live from the alms of the poor people. Otherwise, we often hear political rhetoric from western capitalist states or local churchgoers who labeled FRETILIN or, at least, its leaders to be  communist. It is now a public knowledge how the western superpower countries used that branding to support the Indonesian invasion or, in the case of the 2005 church-organized rally, people shouted ‘Alkatiri comunista’, etc. The good news is that neither the church is capitalist nor Dr. Mari Alkatiri (FRETILIN) is communist.

Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx

Back to the question, which of the two (or three) systems does the country adopt in its development policies? The answer is none of the above.

The fact is, Timor Leste does not fully prescribe to either capitalist or communist principles for its economic development. The economic and development policies adopted this far has been a mix of all the above. This is because none of the two antagonistic cold-war systems has succeeded in leading countries to long-term economic growth and full development.

First, communism is a Utopian ideal. Marx’s suggests communism to be the final stage of all systems of development. After the continuous class struggle that led to the failures of previous systems, feudalism and imperialism, the then capitalism would fail too to be replaced by communism where the majority class, proletariat, owns the means of production. However, no country, not even the former USSR, has succeeded in achieving communism.  Lenin and Stalin’s Bolshevik party failed in leading the then USSR to achieve Marx’s idea of communism, and so has Mao’s China. Despite Mao’s effort to quickly transform China to rapid industrialization, which is the necessary condition for socialism and then to communism, his economic policies such as ‘great leap forward’ failed and brought the country into horrible famine in its history. Instead, both Russia and China hid under a communist jacket and applied state socialism to be where they are now. I don’t see Timor Leste is going down that path as yet.

Second, the country is not practicing full capitalism either. Capitalism has its own internal contradiction too, which the global financial crisis could serve as an example. But in Timor Leste’s development case, it is still far to implement capitalism or its principles because the system depends on external factors such as infrastructures, laws and regulations. Capitalism, which is characterized by mass production, market liberalization and cheap labor, could only flourish where there is good infrastructure in place, well-regulated economic activities and high reserve of unskilled labor. Instead, Timorese state has been the main and biggest investor in almost all sectors of development.

So, what system does Timorese governments adopt, then? The five consecutive governments have applied a little bit of the good things from both capitalist and socialist principles. The first constitutional government focused its program on, just to name few, basic infrastructure and services such as clean water, free education and basic health services. This could be seen as Mauberian approach because it deals with that of which really basic to the people. The fourth and fifth constitutional governments, with their fiscal flexibility, took up more rigorous projects in infrastructure along with financial services and social welfare. Many call this type of mix as ‘middle-way’ system (some call it social democrat idealism). That is, on one hand, the government is taking the capitalist role in investing heavily in infrastructure, goods and services that is the realm of the private sector or capitalists, so to speak. It provides mechanisms for private sector empowerment through programs like Pakote Referendum, PDDs, Concorcio Nacional Timorense (CNT), providing loans/credit to small enterprises and many more. In the area of agriculture, the government is also involving indirectly in production output through subsidies, which is not allowed in a neoliberal-free trade system. Apart from these production related activities, the state is also involved in stimulating demand through social welfare programs (payments to veterans, the Aged, widows and the orphans) and many more. This public sector expenses will eventually stimulate growth that pave the way for the emersion of a strong private sector.

This middle way has been practiced, at different levels, in Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark as well as our neighbouring Asian countries such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (Others call it state interventionism). The objective of this middle way practice is to achieve economic development without having to patronise any of the two systems. It is to break away from ‘golden strait jacket’ and tailor it according to the stages of Timor Leste’s development.

After all that has been said and done, I think, for now, the middle-way is working effectively for Timor Leste’s development. The state’s capitalist character is needed at this time to create conditions for local industries to produce consumer goods by which the money will be spent locally, rather than always being dependent on imported goods. The social democrat character of social objectives ensures that there is equal wealth distribution and no single Timorese is left behind in this whole development process. Why mind capitalist and communist idealism when there is a middle-way?